Search

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) reshape many aspects of human life creating new opportunities for value creation but at the same time posing significant threats. This paper posits that as AI systems increasingly influence societies, their development and use need to be responsible and aligned with human rights. Multiple principles and guidelines for responsible AI have been proposed during the last few years. These principles are frequently presented as lists with little coherence and no theoretical basis. This paper draws from Rawls' "justice as fairness" theory to propose a hierarchical framework of ten interrelated principles for responsible AI. This framework can be used as a roadmap for organizations towards increasing their maturity for developing, deploying and managing AI responsibly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Establishing accountability for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems is challenging due to the distribution of responsibilities among multiple actors involved in their development, deployment, and use. Nonetheless, AI accountability is crucial. As AI can affect all aspects of private and professional life, the actors involved in AI lifecycles need to take responsibility for their decisions and actions, be ready to respond to interrogations by those affected by AI and held liable when AI works in unacceptable ways. Despite the significance of AI accountability, the Information Systems research community has not engaged much with the topic and lacks a systematic understanding of existing approaches to it. This paper present the results of a comprehensive conceptual literature review that synthetizes current knowledge on AI accountability. The paper contributes to the IS literature by providing (i) conceptual clarification mapping different accountability conceptualizations; (ii) a comprehensive framework for AI accountability challenges and actionable responses at three different levels: system, process, data and; (iii) a framing of AI accountability as a a socio-technical and organizational problem that IS researchers are well-equipped to study highlighting the need to balance instrumental and humanistic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Along with advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and organizations' ability to use AI systems in their operations and business, several ethical and moral issues emerge. In response to managing ethical AI issues, principles for Responsible AI (RAI) have been developed. However, beyond the availability of these principles, more insights are needed on how to operationalize RAI principles. In this paper, we provide empirical findings about actual RAI practices derived from interviews with experts in America and Europe. Drawing from these empirical insights, we make three contributions to RAI literature. First, we provide a synthesis of current practices for providing fair, explainable, and inclusive AI. Second, we provide an overview of roles and structures for governing RAI in organizations. Finally, we show how these practices can be integrated into different activities within AI workflows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The organisational adoption and use of Enterprise Architecture (EA) are pursued by enterprises aiming to improve their digital services and overall performance by aligning IT with processes. Nevertheless, despite the increasing interest in EA, it is still not widely used. Prior research provides explanations of institutional elements enabling or inhibiting EA adoption and use but does not provide concrete suggestions on facilitating EA adoption. This paper suggests different types of institutional work that can strengthen the use of EA, addressing central challenges met by EA initiatives. Specifically, the paper presents evidence from a longitudinal case study on the introduction of EA in the hospital sector in Norway. We show how institutional work can mitigate the inherent challenges of EA initiatives and thereby speed-up and strengthen the use of EA in organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The resurgence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) raises concerns related to the risk of introducing opaque solutions and deferring responsibility to black-boxed systems. This paper suggests re-contextualising extant sociotechnical design principles to deliver AI-infused systems that enhance human agency without removing human responsibility. Specifically, Cherns' principles for regulating variance, boundaries and authority and Clegg's principles for coordinating tasks, processes and attitudes are used. These principles are introduced in an empirical study within a public service organization in Norway that is exploring artificial intelligence to deliver more efficient services to citizens while being committed to doing it responsibly. The design principles can support practitioners engaged in the introduction of AI in organisations, and serve researchers that aim to conceptualize and develop processes for accountability by design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enterprise Architecture allows addressing technologies and processes in a holistic way and mirrors choices related to process standardization and data integration. It has the potential to address long-standing problems in health information systems related to fragmented IT portfolios, immature IT infrastructures, and silo-structured organizing. Nevertheless, uptake of Enterprise Architecture in hospitals has been slow. To understand the issues related to this slow uptake we have undertaken an interview study with architects and managers. The issues identified reveal a level of incongruence between healthcare as a domain and the practice of EA. Specifically, by analyzing the experiences of architects and managers we identified four different areas of such incongruence that create the need to reconcile a) Bottom-up vs. Top-down Planning b) Clinical vs. Systems´ Knowledge, c) Local vs. Global Arrangements and d) Patient Safety vs. Patient Privacy. Building on prior related research we propose ways for resolving the incongruence issues identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Realizing the potential of digital technologies in hospital care requires collaborative innovation among multiple actors both within and beyond hospitals. Our research investigates the question: what does it take to foster collaborative innovation within a traditionally siloed and closed health information infrastructure? Empirical findings are derived from three cases, which we analyze by focusing on how innovation relates to interfaces with hospitals' information infrastructures. We draw on literature on digital platforms and innovation ecosystems and focus on the notion of boundary resources to characterize these innovation interfaces. While this notion has mainly addressed the concerns of platform owners for 'securing' and 'resourcing' their platforms, our analysis also points to resources related to peripheral actors' needs, specifically 'discovering' and 'vesting' resources. Discovering resources assist innovators in making sense of possibilities and limitations, while vesting resources relate to value appropriation. These resources are crucial for collaborative innovation in existing hospital information infrastructures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an increasingly digital world, introducing new interorganizational systems requires establishing associations and relying on contributions of multiple actors that control existing technical solutions. This article examines the question: "how can large-scale system implementations across multiple organizations be governed in situations of distributed control over components?". To answer this question, we present the findings of a longitudinal case study on the introduction of e-prescription in Norway over a 14-year period. The findings point to complementary architectural and managerial arrangements that make possible a polycentric governance approach. This work contributes to research on Information Systems Governance by providing insights relevant to mandating large-scale system implementations across organizations by mobilizing and orienting multiple contributors that control various preexisting solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to contribute to the on-going discourse on how to design appropriate governance technology for highly reliable professional work within healthcare. With this aim, we study the Greek ePrescription initiative which was recently launched for controlling medication costs, improving patient safety and providing support for policy development. The empirical data used in this paper were collected over a nine month period from three different pharmacies implementing the new ePrescription platform. The analysis of data collected led to the identification of tensions between the established way of performing work (which was based on professionalism and discretion) and the new way imposed by e-prescribing (which is based on activity control and monitoring). Pharmacists traditionally interpreted rules in the light of knowledge, practice/habitude and contextual specificities but with e-prescribing the rules are solidified. From "rules to interpret" they turned to "rules to follow". The tensions are currently resolved by pharmacists with the employment of workarounds. We view workarounds as indications of incongruence between technology and task that can be productively used for design improvement. We propose the analysis of workarounds as a way to develop recommendations for redesign and we provide some examples of such recommendations based on a selection of workarounds identified. Furthermore, we attempt to generalise the case-specific insights by linking redesign recommendations to the concepts of usability, tailorability, and generativity of information systems. Usability is a rather mature concept which relates to the capability of software to be easily appropriated when introduced under specified conditions and is a prerequisite for the success of eGovernment initiatives. Tailorability enables systems to continue functioning in the face of perturbations by offering users the option to adopt alternative predefined courses of action. Generativity is the capability of technology to evoke new thinking enabling professionals to gradually develop and rejuvenate their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]